Live Q&As

There are several reasons. First, we're home to the federal government. The Pentagon is here, too. As a result, a large portion of all federal spending occurs in our area. Second, being our nation's capital, we attract lots of tourists -- a big boost to our economy. We've also built large biotech, telecom and government contracting communities -- all drawn to our area by the above. Finally, we have 3 airports! And did I mention our geographic location - near Philly, NY, mountains and the ocean - all make this a great place to live. Economically, we're blessed, no doubt about it.

I'm not sure I agree with any of your premises...that we will experience a crash, or that Great Falls is particularly susecptible to one. But if you feel that way and own property in GF, you should sell now.

It's always hard to complain that your house is worth twice as much as what you paid for it. Still....

You're right that, fundamentally, housing prices and incomes are, and need to be, linked. When that link is broken, bad things happen - as we saw in the past 10 years.

You are correct, on all counts. Instead of trying to guess which investment will do well next, simply buy all investments. Then, rebalance periodically - because each investment will perform differently over time. This helps you protect your profits while reducing your risks. It also takes the guesswork out of investing. But it's a boring (although successful) approach - and that's why most investors don't follow this method. That's unfortunate, because as you point out, investors merely reduce their returns, increase their risks, pay more in taxes and incur higher trading costs. All for no benefit.

Until we see what the "supercommittee" of Congress proposes, it's difficult to predict. Ultimately, we will experience a reduction in spending - either voluntarily now (by act of Congress) or later by compulsion when we run out of the cash to sustain current levels of spending. If we reduce spending a little now, voluntarily, the impact will be minor and not very noticeable. Might even help. But if we wait until later, it will be much more painful. It's like applying the brakes on a car. You can do it gently over a mile, or wait until you actually hit the wall. Either way, you'll come to a stop. One hurts more than the other. But the one that hurts more also allows you to enjoy higher speeds for a bit longer - hence the temptation to delay braking.

No one gets wealthy working for the government. But lots of people get wealthy indirectly - providing services to the government, or supporting others who support the government.

Yes, you will get money back when you sell the investment. That's because reinvesting the dividends increases your "cost basis" - and later this reduces your taxable profit, or provides a taxable loss (which is how you get the taxes back). But the rules are slanted to favor the government: you pay the taxes now (and only get the money back later), and if indeed you are owed a refund, the amount of refund you can get back is limited per year, while taxes on gains are unlimited. Quite unfair.

Yes, GF has always been wealthy - because it was the gentry who could afford contryside homes back in the day. But GF is no longer a endge community like it was 100 years ago - or even 30 years ago. Today, it's almost central, and as a result, its population has grown dramatically. With growth comes a reduction in per capita wealth. It's still at or near the top, but not like it once was. Your point is accurate: you don't create wealth by destroying the wealth of those who have it.

This is one of the arguments being made on Capitol Hill. It goes: "government taxes people, and spends the money. As it spends, it creates jobs. So what's the problem?" The problem, some argue, is that the government spends the money inefficiently, and denies those who have the money the ability to decide for themselves how that money is spent. This argument holds that those who have the money - Americans - are the best arbiters of how to spend it, and the more of it we have (meaning the less that's taxed), the more we'll spend.